Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Roe v Wade for MEN - Men's Abortion Rights

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   
I searched and didn't find anything on this.

A lawsuit was filed recently (March) that stated men should have equal 'pro-choice' rights as women. Titled "Rowe vs. Wade: For Men" by the group pressing the suit, The National Center for Men, they are trying to raise awareness of the "sexest and unequal" laws currently in place regarding abortion. As the laws are now, the father of an unborn child has no say in whether the mother will keep the child or not.

The group's lawsuit says that at a certain period during the pregnancy, the parents must choose whether to keep the child or not. If the mother wants to keep the child, while the father doesn't, he will have no legal or financial responsibility to the child therafter (child support, etc.).




On March 9, 2006 The National Center For Men will file suit in a United States district court in Michigan on behalf of a man's right to make reproductive choice, to decline fatherhood in the event of an unintended pregnancy. We will call our lawsuit Roe vs. Wade for Men.


The National Center for Men

We had a very interesting discussion about this issue in a law class of mine. The general concensus from a legal standpoint was that men should have equal rights to women, and it currently is a disproportionally distributed law putting more legal liability on one group than another. However, from an ethical and moral position, the class was very divided.

My personal stance? I'm not a vocal pro-choice advocate, but I feel that as the laws are now, men have a much greater liability then women do when they are compared side by side. I'd say I would support this lawsuit and the plantiff's position.

I would like to hear your guys' thoughts and opinions on this.



[edit on 21-7-2006 by sillinous1]




posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   
I have to agree with this.

Hell, My uncle and a girl he has gone out on a date with a few times, well she has gotten pregnant by accident.

He doesn't wan't the child. The girl wants to keep it. She's going to keep it. He wants abortion. She doesn't.

Well. He's going to have to pay a whole heap to raise that baby now.
Condoms were used... but i guess one got through some how.

Anyways...

There's his life turned upside down.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   
ummmm.....a friend of mine's husband has become heart attack proned agaisnt her wishes, he wants to keep his doughnuts, fried foods, ect.....she want him to eat more sensibly. she knows that a heart attack would really mess up her financial future.....who should have the last word about what he eats, drinks, the medicine he is to take, the excercise routine he performs, ect?



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Whenever 2 people have sex, it's possible a pregnancy will result. EVERY time a man or a woman has sex, they know that it's possible they will become parents. If they're not ready, willing and able to bear these consequences, they should refrain.

If that were drilled into every person's head, they'd be a lot more careful.

The vast majority of 'accidental' pregnancies aren't because the condom broke, they occur because there was no condom, or other birth control and the parents 'took a chance'. Oops.

Don't forget that if a baby results from a pregnancy, the father and mother care for it (ideally). In today's society, most often the man pays child support (a portion of the child's care) and the woman usually has to work, too and also provides the hands-on care. Just because the father pays money doesn't mean the mother is doing nothing for the care of the child. Most times, she has to work AND care for the baby. It's a full time job for her.

If a father wants, he can just throw money at the situation and not be involved in raising a child. The mother (in today's society) doesn't have that option.

And the child support laws are equally applied to men and women. Most of the time, men don't want full custody. They'd rather pay the money.

In a FAIR situation, the father would also have to provide physical care for the child, not just financial. So I would advise the National Center for Men to be careful what they wish for. Sounds like they want men to be able to decline fatherhood, but are they willing to take a truly equal part in raising the child should they decide to have it?

I'm 100% pro-choice and anti-abortion.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 09:28 AM
link   
So, what happens if the father keeps telling the mother that he wants her to have the baby, then the baby comes, he can't handle fatherhood after all, and then says "Hey, under this new law I don't have to pay child support if I didn't agree to having the kid to begin with. Ok, I don't want the kid, so I'm not paying anything." Are these fathers who push the woman to have a baby she doesn't want going to take full custody and raise the baby by themselves with no child support from the mother? There might be a few, but I wouldn't think very many men would be willing to take that responsibility on by themselves. Basically what this says to me is that if I were to get pregnant, not want the baby, but my husband did, he could make it to where I couldn't have an abortion if I decided I wanted one, and I would have to raise a baby that I didn't want. That does not seem like the healthiest environment to raise a child.

I'm pro-choice, but I don't think I could ever bring myself to have an abortion. I've lost a baby once to miscarriage and I don't think I could bring myself to lose one on purpose. My problem with this kind of legislation is that it would essentially make Roe v. Wade null and void. If a woman wants an abortion, but the man doesn't then he needs to carry the baby for nine months and give birth. Until that is possible, I don't think any man has any right whatsoever to tell me or any other woman what we can and cannot do with our bodies.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   
The problem with this is very simply and clear to see.

If a man and a woman make a baby, ONLY the woman gets choices in what will happen.

The man has NO RIGHTS in deciding to keep/abort/give away the baby.

Seems to me since BOTH parties created this baby, BOTH parties should have input on what will happen and how.

But we all know this is NOT what happens-the woman will get to do whatever she wants and the man will have to pay in one form or the other for it.

This is why I supported the ERA so much-it was called the equal rights amendment-but should have be called "the MENS" equal rights amendment.
It would have stopped all the alimony/palimony and FORCED child support. It would have made the rights equal instead of all in womens hands.




[edit on 7/22/2006 by mrmonsoon]



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   


The vast majority of 'accidental' pregnancies aren't because the condom broke, they occur because there was no condom, or other birth control and the parents 'took a chance'. Oops.


I think you mean negligent pregnancy, there's no such thing as an accidental pregnancy....

First off, I don't believe in abortion. Just like BH said:

Whenever 2 people have sex, it's possible a pregnancy will result. EVERY time a man or a woman has sex, they know that it's possible they will become parents. If they're not ready, willing and able to bear these consequences, they should refrain.


Abortion should NOT be used as a form of birth control.

However, I agree with BH. The women should have more say as to wether or not to keep the child. Why, because the chances are that the man's only obligation is to pay child support every month. The mother has to endure long nights, crying, stress, etc.... all the things that new parents don't look forward to.

Now if there were some kind of pre-contract that the father would have to sign obligating him to at least 50% child care, yaddha yaddha yaddha....then, imo, he should have as much say. But we all know that's never going to happen, so just scratch that idea.

Sporty

[edit on 22/7/2006 by SportyMB]



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
The man has NO RIGHTS in deciding to keep/abort/give away the baby.

Seems to me since BOTH parties created this baby, BOTH parties should have input on what will happen and how.


So if the father wants the baby, but the mother does not, she should be forced to carry a baby for nine months and go through delivery just so the father can have a child. Why should she be forced to carry this baby? What happens if she carries on as she would if she weren't pregnant and doesn't take care of herself right and hurts the baby? What happens if the father changes his mind after the baby is born and decides he doesn't like being a father? Then we give the baby up for adoption and it is just one more child in a sea of children that are unwanted and waiting to be adopted. Is that better than allowing the woman to end a pregnancy that is unwanted to begin with?


This is why I supported the ERA so much-it was called the equal rights amendment-but should have be called "the MENS" equal rights amendment.
It would have stopped all the alimony/palimony and FORCED child support. It would have made the rights equal instead of all in womens hands.


So if a man and woman have a child, but the man decides he wants out of the relationship but still wants to see his kid every other weekend and two weeks in the summer he shouldn't have to help support the child? Raising a baby is expensive and it really does take two incomes. If my husband and I were to get a divorce you can bet your butt he'd be helping me support our son. I'm trying to get through college right now and can't get a better job than the one I have now. I know I couldn't raise our son the way he deserves to be raised on my own right now. I make decent money to not have a college degree, but once you take out taxes, house payment, car payment, insurance, groceries, utilities, clothes, medical care, etc. etc. There isn't enough left to pay a babysitter so I could work. If my husband and I weren't both working we'd be bankrupt by now. My point is, if a man wants visitation he needs to help support the child financially. If he wants full custody, he should try to get it and have the woman pay child support. If he doesn't want anything else to do with his child and doesn't want to pay support, he needs to give up his rights as a father.

[edit on 22-7-2006 by Jenna]



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Jenna, you use old tired idea's that just don't work.

You are so worried about women losing some rights that you seem to support the idea of men having NO RIGHTS what so ever-in terms of the baby.

If the woman has the sole right to decide if the baby will be born/kept-then the man should have the sole right to decide if he will be FORCED to pay for it and the woman.

She wants to keep the child-fine-no problems-really-JUST she can't decide to force the man to pay for her and her baby-bet that will change a lot of womens minds on what they want to do!.

If you want to FORCE tha man to pay for everything, then he MUST have the right to just say NO! You can have and keep the baby, but I will not pay for you and your baby my whole life!

Women either make all the decisions and ACCEPT ALL the finicial responsibility or they must share the decision making process.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
If you want to FORCE tha man to pay for everything, then he MUST have the right to just say NO! You can have and keep the baby, but I will not pay for you and your baby my whole life!


In what parallel universe does the man pay for the baby and the woman?
Child support is a PORTION of the child's financial care. NOTHING for the mom, and not even the entirety of the baby's care. PLUS the woman is responsible for the physical care.

Check into the law.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
If the woman has the sole right to decide if the baby will be born/kept-then the man should have the sole right to decide if he will be FORCED to pay for it and the woman.

She wants to keep the child-fine-no problems-really-JUST she can't decide to force the man to pay for her and her baby-bet that will change a lot of womens minds on what they want to do!.

If you want to FORCE tha man to pay for everything, then he MUST have the right to just say NO! You can have and keep the baby, but I will not pay for you and your baby my whole life!

Women either make all the decisions and ACCEPT ALL the finicial responsibility or they must share the decision making process.


If you had actually read my entire post, down there at the bottom of it I said:

My point is, if a man wants visitation he needs to help support the child financially. If he wants full custody, he should try to get it and have the woman pay child support. If he doesn't want anything else to do with his child and doesn't want to pay support, he needs to give up his rights as a father.


It's that simple really. If the guy doesn't want to help support the child, he should give up his rights. No rights = No responsiblity for the child = No child support. If you want to see your kid, you should help support it. If you don't want to support it, then you shouldn't be able to see it ever.

Men do have the option to not pay child support. There's this little piece of paper that you sign that says you are giving up all rights and claims to the child in question. You are no longer his legal father, you're name can be removed from the birth certificate, and from that date forward you cannot be held responsible for that child in any way shape or form.

Not once did I say that all men must pay child support no matter what. Please don't turn my words around. My "old, tired ideas" seem to work just fine in the real world where every day men decide they don't want to take care of the child they helped create. If a woman can't force a man to pay child support, a man can't force a woman to have a child to begin with.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
BH,

here is the leagal terms I refered to (please note this is in the US and may vary from state to state:

palimony:An allowance for support made under court order and given usually by one person to his or her former lover or live-in companion after they have separated.

www.answers.com...

Palimony:An allowance for support made under court order and given usually by one person to his or her former lover or live-in companion after they have separated.


:a court-ordered allowance paid by one member of a couple formerly living together out of wedlock to the other

:support paid by one half of an unmarried partnership after the relationship ends

dictionary.reference.com...

There are references to the money women get from men without being married.

Jenna,"quote: My point is, if a man wants visitation he needs to help support the child financially. If he wants full custody, he should try to get it and have the woman pay child support. If he doesn't want anything else to do with his child and doesn't want to pay support, he needs to give up his rights as a father."

If you truely believe in that, I agree with you completly.

Jenna, I am sorry to say that simply is not true. I know a fellow that was just in that exact situation. What happened was the woman filled pappers in court and money was taken from him-with no recourse.

There was even a case of a man who's name was not on the birth cert, but was forced to pay for the child.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
If you truely believe in that, I agree with you completly.

Jenna, I am sorry to say that simply is not true. I know a fellow that was just in that exact situation. What happened was the woman filled pappers in court and money was taken from him-with no recourse.

There was even a case of a man who's name was not on the birth cert, but was forced to pay for the child.



I do believe that. It doesn't make any sense to me to pay support for a child you want nothing to do with, just as it doesn't make sense to not pay support for a child you do want to see. It also doesn't make sense to have a child that you don't want to begin with.

As for the two guys you were talking about, I'm sure they can go back to court and get their respective situations taken care of. The first guy should have gone to the court date that was set before they started taking child support from him. The second shouldn't have been forced to pay child support unless he is the child's father, something that DNA can prove. If they don't want to pay the support and don't want to see their kids, then more power to them. They need to go to court to fix that though.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
There was even a case of a man who's name was not on the birth cert, but was forced to pay for the child.

Thats sounds very strange.. it would be a bit hard to obligate a man legally to a child without documentation to support it. Did they prove he was the father through DNA or something?

Personally I think while the woman is pregnant.. it would be moral for her to take the father's opinions into consideration but if she chooses something contrary to what he wants.. it's too bad. If the law is going to side with him.. a forced abortion would be a violation and a forced birth would be treating her has an incubator [slave] so would be dehuminising [she would also have to be locked up]. It kind of reminds me of when rape victims are forced to marry their rapists in some cultures. What happens if a stalkers/abuser rapes a woman in the hopes she gets pregnant and he can take advantage of such laws to control her? It's a barbaric concept.

After the birth though.. the umbilical cord does get severed so the responsibilty/support for parenting is [should be] 50/50. It's not more 'her problem'.

[edit on 22-7-2006 by riley]



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmonsoon
Palimony:An allowance for support made under court order and given usually by one person to his or her former lover or live-in companion after they have separated.


That has absolutely NOTHING to do with having a child. And it is paid man to woman AND woman to man. It's not exclusive to one gender or another.

A regards child support and visitation, they are not connected. The non-custodial parent must, by law, pay child support whether or not he exercises his visitation rights. He does not pay to see his children. He pays to help support the child he is responsible for, whether or not he chooses to be part of their lives.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Regarding the last post, good points. And I think that's the bottom line. Guys, if you really loved your partner, would you want her to be forceably pregnant? It violates a woman's right to say what happens to her body.

Guys, If men could get pregnant, how would YOU feel about someone forcing you to carry a child you don't want? I don't think there'd be too many guys willing to put with that. Women have been more conditioned to allow others to violate her space through rape, laws and general attitude of society.

I will NOT allow ANYONE to tell me what I can do with MY body. I would not presume to tell anyone else what they should do with their body, either.

And, what if a man rapes his daughter, he can then force her to have an abortion against her wishes or he can force her to carry the baby against her wishes. How is that fair?

Sorry, guys, life just isn't fair, and in this one, a woman should have the right to choose what she will do with HER OWN body. If you want a baby so badly, adopt one. If you state doesn't allow single parents to adopt, then change THOSE laws, don't force women to become pregnant against their wishes, that's just taking advantage of a woman's ability to have children.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
ya know, I've known a few women who's life would have been risked if they opted to carry the baby full term. I've also known one who spent the last part of her pregnacy on total bedrest....

I would be more than willing to say that when we make important decisions that impact others we should get their input before we make that decision.....but I still hold the right to make the decision myself, sorry...

so, if a women has two or three kids she is caring for as it is, and is told that she will have to curtail her activities to the point where she is no longer able to give these children the care that she is now providing, you think that the father, who may, or may not decide to pitch in and help out with her responsibilities should be the one making the decision and force her to have this one child that he desires....


ya see, it is the women who sacrifices to bring the child into the world. it's she who decides to put up with the queesy stomach in the morning, and well, in some cases maybe even face death for the child's sake....if that decision is taken from her and placed in the hands of the father, or the government, or whatever, and it's forced on her, it's no longer a sacrifice but rather an obligation, or a curse from God in at least a few men's eyes still for a sin that took place millinea ago....well, because it was treated as a sin, or obligation for so many centuries, we have what we do now....motherhood has about as much respect as a begger in the street for alot of people. no respect, why have kids, right....

so, now, you want to try to coerce women, force them to have kids again......


maybe when your significant other has the legal power to have you neutered!



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
The man DID have a choice. He had the choice NOT to have sex, or to use his own condoms. Or to get sterilized if he never wants kids.

Since the kid is gonna reside in the womans body for 9 months, I dont believe a man has a say in abortion. He shouldn't. How would he like it if a girlfriend wanted him circumcised because his gentials were going in her body, after all? And he didnt?

men have all the choice in the world. Once hes let his horses out of the gate, the dice are rolled, and he must deal with the consequences. Just like the woman must.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
Guys, if you really loved your partner, would you want her to be forceably pregnant? It violates a woman's right to say what happens to her body.


From what I understand the lawsuit only addresses the man's right to choose not to have the child if the woman WANTS to. It apparently says nothing about the opposite situation- if a man wants the child but the woman doesn't. I don't know how that situation would play out if this lawsuit was successful.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The man DID have a choice. He had the choice NOT to have sex, or to use his own condoms. Or to get sterilized if he never wants kids.

Since the kid is gonna reside in the womans body for 9 months, I dont believe a man has a say in abortion. He shouldn't. How would he like it if a girlfriend wanted him circumcised because his gentials were going in her body, after all? And he didnt?

men have all the choice in the world. Once hes let his horses out of the gate, the dice are rolled, and he must deal with the consequences. Just like the woman must.


Whether you are for or against abortion is irrellevant. Abortion is legal in the United States for the time being, and probably will stay that way in at least the near future. All of the current laws, according to our legal system here in the US, must protect everyone equally. Discrimination under specific laws is illegal. That is exactly what the current abortion laws are: discriminatory towards men.






top topics



 
0

log in

join